PUSHPA ALIAS LEELA Vs. SHAKUNTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) both these connected appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. A very short question of law has arisen for consideration in these appeals and its resolution depends upon the interpretation that would be given to section 157 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 ('act for short). The facts first.

(2.) two claim petitions being mac petition nos. 62-ns/2 of 1994 and 63-ns/2 of 1994 were filed by the legal heirs of two deceased persons claiming compensation for the deaths of the said two deceased persons which resulted because of an accident occurred on may 7, 1994 on dhararu dhar road near bangora, tehsil arki, district" solan in the state of himachal pradesh involving truck bearing no. Hpa - 1435. The following seven issues were framed by the tribunal for adjudication:

(3.) findings on all the aforesaid issues, except with respect to issue no. 6 went in favour of the claimant-appellants and accordingly in both the claim petitions awards for rs. 5,16,000/- and rs. 2,42,000/- respectively were passed in favour of the claimants. Since however, the finding on issue no. 6 went in favour of respondent no. 3 oriental insurance company ltd., the tribunal in the operative part of the judgment directed that the aforesaid awarded amounts shall be paid to the claimants by respondent no. 1 salig ram, the owner of the vehicle in question. In these two appeals filed in this court under section 173 of the act, the appellants who were the claimants in the above referred two claim petitions before the tribunal have confined and restricted their challenge only to that part of the award dated september 25, 1998 whereby the tribunal, after deciding issue no. 6 in favour of respondent no. 3, has consequently decided and ordered that the awarded amounts shall be paid by respondent no. 1 salig ram the owner of the vehicle, meaning thereby that it shall not be paid by respondent no. 3 oriental insurance company ltd., the insurer of the vehicle in question on the ground that as on the date of the accident respondent no. 3 did not have any insurance interest in the vehicle in question since, as per the tribunal's finding, the vehicle in question on the date of accident could not be deemed or considered to have been insured with respondent no. 3.